The Montgomeryshire Express and Radnor Times

(Continued from Page 6). from the Conservative party for their de- structive intentions. It it said that they intend to destroy and to pull down, not to erect and to construct. I entirely deny that (hear, hear). What has been destroyed since the general election of 1910 or 1906 ? (hear, hear). Is there a single institution or any property that has been destroyed by the Liberal Government ? On the other hand, they have done their utmost to con- struct a peaceful and a happy future to a certain degree for those who are less for- tunate than some of us here. I believe thers is no greater apcstle for humanity in practical legislation than Mr Lloyd George (loud cheers). I am heartily glad that amidst this practical, mercenary 20th century, when we all think of how much we can make and how much we can get, that there is somebody at the the head of affairs and in the Cabinet who really thinks of the philanthropic side as well as the practical side of legislation. Britannia and the Empire has in Mr Lloyd George the finest housekeeper that any country could have (hear, hear). It is a wonder how he manages to get the money in with- out having to borrow it. Anybody can get money if they can go and borrow it- A Voice: No tariffs Mr Humphreys-Owen: No tariffs ? Cer- tainly not! (laughter and cheers). Don't you go and put up tariffs you won't be able to get money then withour borrowing it (hear, hear). People have talked about borrowing £ 100,000,000 for the Navy. We don't borrow money until we are obliged to, and as it is we are dong very nicely now, paying money out of income. That is the way to keep the credit of the coun- try safe. We paid last year about £ 40,000,000 for the Navy, and I am afraid it may cost C45,000,000 this year. It is going up tremendously to the utmost of its capacity under this very progressive and Liberal Government (hear, hear). But if there are still people who want to force the Government to borrow £ 100,000,000 for the Navy or any other purpose, I promise you I will do my best to see that in Mont- gomeryshire at any rate we hurry on the county lunatic asylum to give them good accommodation (loud laughter and cheers). "HAVE YOU HAD A TARIFF?" I don't think the House of Lords desire to retain their power, nor do the Con- servative party desire to retain the power of the House of Lords, except for one reason-to force tariffs upon this country (hear, hear). I wonder does anybody in Llanfyllin think that Tariff Reform" is a good thing, is there ? Mr W. Arthur Pughe: Yes! Mr Humphreys-Owen: Have you ever had a tariff ? (Voices: No!). You don't know what it is. You get it if you go and live in Germany or the United States. The very first thing that the Conservative party did at Nottingham was to reap in Mr Bal- four. They have been trying to fish for Mr Balfour for five years, and they got him on the platform, and he admitted that he would put a 2s tax on corn. I don't, be. lieve that the 2s tax is going to stop there. Everybody else who has something to sell or to grow will ask to be protected as well. Then you will have a manufacturer going up to his representative in the House of Commons—to Mr Humphreys-Owen or Colonel Pryce-Jones—and saying, Look here, I have a little bit of trade. I think I could do better if I was allowed to charge more for what I sell." These manu- facturers will say 5 per cent. or 10 per <5ent. or 20 per cent. is not enough, and so long as that party is in power, it is com- mitted to the principle of helping those who ask for something over what they would .charge themselves in the open market. MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN'S AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. You will soon know where the shoe is pinching, as they do in America at the present day. That is nort theory. They put up a very high tariff-the Dingley tariff-under President McKinley. I hap- pened to be in America at the time, and know how it happened. Certain men made millions out of their manufactures. But we are told that when manufacturers make millions the working men are going to get part of it. But who is going to make the manufacturers share it with their work- men ? These don't get higher wages be- cause the masters get higher profits. It is human nature in other parts of the world, and I am afraid it would not be different in this country (hear, hear). The Republi- can party got into power at the last general election in America because they promised to break down these tariffs. But the big bosses, the manufacturers, who hold the ealth and power of the country—as the Lords do here at the present time to some extent—would not allow them. The result is that a House of Congress—equal to our Rouse of Commons—has been returned strongly democratic and pledged to pull down these tariffs (hear, hear). But it re- mains to be seen whether they have tjff power to do so. If you go into politw, as the Americans do, to ask Westminster to get you a little more money than you de- serve, you will find that the corrupt poli- tics of this country will become absolutely Unbearable (hear, hear). It will be a ter- rible disaster to the poor people, to the labouring classes, and especially to the small towns of Montgomeryshire, if such a system is forced upon us (hear, hear). Dr. Spinther James. WHY ARE THE PEERS LIKE CROAKING CROWS ? Before the meeting began, young Radicals in the rear of the room had been singing God made the land for the people." Dr Spinther James, Llandudno, next spoke in Welsh to show the personal interest of the Lords in the Land Question. How is it (he asked) that Mr Lloyd George is one of the best abused men in the whole world, and, on the other hand, one of the most popular men in Europe ? (hear, hear). Why has so much commotion, so much abuse, so much passion been awakened at this election ? Did you ever, climb to a crow's nest ? You remember the old crows hover- ing peacefully about the branches of the trees, taking no notice of you when you were at the bottom. But as you climbed up they began to get excited, and croak and threaten. What is the matter ? Ah They see you are getting nearer their nest (loud laughter). Mr Lloyd George was left alone and was respected while he was at the bottom. But now the little boy from Criccieth has got nearer the Peers' nests (loud laughter and cheers). They see the time is comng when the wealth, not the poverty, of this country shall pay the rates (hear, hear). RADICAL HECKLER'S TEST. The Chairman having invited questions, Mr Maurice Jones, stonemason, a local Radical spoke: I saw in to-day's paper the Chancellor of the Exchequer reports that up to the 22nd of this month E2,083,000 has been paid into the Exchequer as super- tax (6d in the £ on all incomes above E5,000 a year). If it is found necessary to get more money for old age pensions, say at the age of 65, for working men who can -work no longer, would you be prepared to support a proposal in Parliament to raise this super-tax from 6d to, say, about Is in the £ on the poor people who only have £ 100 a week coming in ? (laughter). Mr Humphreya-Owen: I would rather leave it to the people here to instruct me what to do in Parliament. Shall I vote for an extra 6d on those who have £ 100 a week ? Loud Voices: Yes! Yes! Mr Humphreys-Owen: I haven't got it, so it won't hurt me (laughter). Of course, I might get it some day, and then I should have to think about it. But I promise you, if ever I have that income, well, I'll be generous, and let you have that 6d (laughter and cheers).

LLANIDLOES. Mr. William Ashton. A BAD JOB FOR US." Mr William Ashton, the grand old man of the first town on the Severn," took the chair in the Public Rooms last Wednesday night. Everyone who knows anything about Mr Humphreys-Owen, knows that he is a Radical to the core," said the Chair- man, "Radical enough for a Llanidloes audience (laughter and cheers). "After all, it is not a question of men, but of principles, whether you are going to be ruled by the House of Lords or by yourselves. What is the use of us going to the trouble and expense of fighting a general election when, if we return the Liberal party, they are not in power, but only in office. Shut the House of Commons up, and let the Lords govern the country, if it is going to be this way! (laughter and cheers). One of the Tory leaders said the other day there would be no Tariff Reform' after any one general election. Don't be- lieve them! (laughter). They were returned in 1900 to settle the South African War, but they also passed an Education Act and a Licensing Act. If they are returned at this election, Protection will come in two or three years' time— A Voice: Bad job for us! Mr Ashton: But now you have an oppor- tunity to strike a blow, and I hope you will do it— A Voice- Let them have it! (laughter and cheers). WE THOUGHT NOT." The Rev B. T. Davies proposed and the Rev Evan Isaac seconded a resolution wel- coming the candidate and pledging every support to secure his triumphant return. This was carried with great cheers, and then a voice in the crowd exclaimed: Opposition ? To the contrary ? Let them have it! The Chairman: Well, to the contrary ? Anybody against the resolution ? Not one hand was raised, and Idloesians laughed as though to say We thought not! I Mr. Humphreys-Owen. WHEN THE LORDS PAY SUPER-TAX. Mr Humphreys-Owen remarked that he understood there was a small gathering of the faithful few in Llanidloes still attached to the other side- A Voice: Very few! (laughter). Another Voice: About 50! Mr Humphreys-Owen: If they happen to have a meeting during this election with their gallant leader, the twice beaten and the once-to-be-beaten-for-ever-again Colonel Pryce-jones,- (laughter)-then let them have a quiet little meeting, and don't molest or trouble them at all.—(A Voice: Very good !)-I will give you a very good reason. It will do the Liberal cause all the good in the world to listen to all the rubbish the Tories have to talk about (laughter and cheers). I haven't a right to go to Parliament be- cause my father was there. The only right I have to go to Parliament is if I am chosen by the people to go (cheers). Therefore, why should Lord Somebody or Other just go into Parliament because his father was there ? It does not make very much difference to the Lords if they have to pay an extra 6d in the £ of super-tax. But an extra 6d or so tax a week makes a great difference in some poor houses, and I daresay there are some of them in Llanidloes.—(A voice: There are!) The Tory dodge of taxing the foreigner is only a subtle and ingenious game for pulling more profits into the hands of a few manufacturers and favoured people at the expense of the working people. It is one of the wickedest schemes that ever a mer- cenary and monied age ever brought about (hear, hear). But I believe this terrible danger, which would come over the country in case of a Tory victory, will be entirely quashed by this general election (hear, hear). Dr. Spinther James. WANTED, TARIFF "REFORM" OR LAND REFORM ? Dr Spinther James next gave an impres- sive historical survey of how the great landowners of the country came to retain the privileges of property, but have got rid of their responsibilities to the Crown in the shape of dues by imposing taxes on ale and corn. Four hundred of these great men," he said, own 14,000,000 acres of the land of this country 1,500 own 64,000,000 acres out of 77,000,000, leaving about 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 to be divided between 45,000,000 of people." Dr Spinther James then pointed out a few historical" milestones," which evoked from one working man critic the appreciation, He's a hearty old boy!" Mr. W. J Evans. THE CASE OF SIR JOHN: ANOTHER MORAL. Our good friend and neighbour," as the Chairman described Mr W. J. Evans, next said: I have only once wished there was a tariff on imported articles, and then I wished the tariff had been a prohibitive one. I refer to the importation of your late member (great laughter). In a sense there was a tax, and a very severe tax, upon your party loyalty. And I would remind you that that tax was borne by the con- sumer, for you swallowed his views whole (laughter). His political coat had become very threadbare, and I don't think any of us were surprised that he decided to give the lining an airing (laughter). Perhaps he will find a constituency on ihe other side. If he does, there may still be hope for the Baghdad railway and the Bengal tigers (laughter). But seriously, if I had been a member of the Boroughs' Liberal Associa- tion, which I regret I am not, I should have had the greatest pleasure in moving the heartiest vote of thanks to Mr-I mean Sir John Rees—(laughter)—for having re- relieved us of his invaluable services (laugh- ter). We have been enabled to obtain in his place a man after our own hearts (loud cheers). In our new candidate we sincerity. And in our new candidate we have a man we can admire and respect, and of exceptional ability. He will be a dis- tinct acquisition to the already able men in the Welsh party. MR. BALFOUR'S TRIAD. A few days ago the Tory leader gave a speech at Nottingham, in which he referred to his party's programme. I want to deal with three of the principal points in his speech: The Navy, Tariff "Reform," and the House of Lords. They almost seem like Faith, Hope, and Charity (laughter): Faith in the Navy. Hope in the unseen advantages of Tariff Reform." And Charity for the misdeeds of the Peers (laughter and cheers). I THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NAVY. With regard to the Navy, the Tory leader and the whole of the Tory party, including their allies, the House oi Lords, would have you believe that they have a monopoly of all patriotism. I know you don't believe that. But at least Mr Balfour had the hon- esty not to actually accuse us this time of neglecting the Navy—except by imputation. But he made one assumption, that in 1913 this country would have only four more Dreadnoughts than the second largest Power." The Navy League Annual, edited and run by one of his strongest followers, said that in 1913 Great Britain would have 27 Dreadnoughts, as against 25 for the United States and Germany combined, as against 21 for Germany, Italy, and Austria combined. I just mention that because Tory speakers and Tory canvassers will try to convince you that we are not upholding the two-Power standard. If they do, I don't suggest that you should call them liars-it is not polite (laughter). Say either that they have been misinformed or that their eyesight is temporarily defective, or that their arithmetic is as feeble as Mr Balfour's (laughter and cheers). So much for the Navy. TARIFF H REFORM": "IT WILL AND IT WILL NOT." Tariff "Reform." Mr Balfour, in the same speech, said that a tax on food would not increase the cost of living in this country." And he gave two distinct reasons: The first was that the tax on for- eign wheat will make wheat' cheaper, be- cause, he said, a tax on foreign wheat will enable colonial producers to bring more ground under cultivation, and there- fore enable them to sell cheaper." He went on to say that the colonial farmer would have some advantage from that tax." In other words, it will and it will not in- crease the cost (laughter). But even if it did bring more ground under cultivation, do you suppose that th* colonial farmer if going to sell at a price below that which he can get ? He is not a philanthropist he is a business man. The other distinct reason was that the Tory Party propose to give you a remission of taxes on other foods. That is very simply explained. There are small taxes on tea, sugar, coffee, cocoa, and currants. It all goes to the Exchequer in relief of other taxes. It amounts altogether to £ 9,000,000. Mr Chamberlain, the King of Tariff Reformers, —(laughter)—said that the cost of his own taxes uhder Tariff Reform to the country would be £ 16,000,000. That was in 1902. This year, owing to increased population, it would be £ 17,000,000. He is going to take £ 9,000,000 off tea, coffee, etc., and impose E17,000,000 (laughter). The Tory leader is an honourable man. But, like his arith- metic, his logic is defective (laughter). WHAT TO DO WITH EVILS. The last point I shall refer to is the House of Lords. You have seen in the papers that the House of Lords has in- dulged in a kind of eleventh hour repent- ance. I am always rather chary of these eleventh hour repentances. It When the Devil was ill, the Devil a saint was he," and it strikes me very forcibly that these blue-bloods that we have heard so much about, when they passed these resolutions were in a blue funk (laughter and cheers). Mr Balfour admitted that there were evils, and he said, "We propose to mitigate them.' That is rather a dangerous admis- sion. If you admit that there are evils, the only course for an honourable man is to remove them, not to lessen them (hear, hear). "If," Mr Balfour again said, "the Com- mons and the Lords differ, we must appeal to the people. But any reform of the House of Lords must be grafted on the existing system." Why should it be ? His propos- als were these: To reduce the total of the House of Lords." But he does not say by how much. "And of the reformed House of Lords the hereditary peers would have one portion, the eminent men that we all respect and admire would have another portion, and the third would be elected to represent the people. But small matters would be settled by conference, and big questions would be referred to the people by a Referendum." You see how careful he is not to mention any figures, the proportion that the one part should bear to the other, and the total of the whole. I am reminded of an incident in the South African war, where some soldiers were fighting at a certain post. It was stated afterwards that 50 per cent. were killed, 25 per cent. were mortally wounded, and only 25 per cent. got off free. When they came to inquire there were only four men in the garrison (laughter). It is just the same with the reform of fhe House of Lords. "VERY FAIR AS THINGS GO NOWADAYS." The question whether is would be at all acceptable depends entirely on the whole number and the proportion which one part bears to the other. For the sake of argu- ment, shall we say that the existing peers would elect one-fourth, the eminent men would constitute another quarter, and, if so, you may take it from me the Tories to Liberals would have two to one. And cer- Jj^inly all the hereditary peers would be Tories, because the only Scotch peer who voted for the Budget was promptly turned out at the next election. The remaining half would be elected to represent the pub- lic community. On that basis I work it out that the result is two Conservatives for one Liberal. Let us assume that the re- vised House has 300 members. Then you would have 200 Conservatives and 100 Lib- erals. It sounds very fair, I suppose, as things go nowadays (great laughter). Then in case of a difference you would have a joint meeting of the two Houses. Now see how it works out. In order to equalize those 200 Tories you have got to have a Liberal majority of at least 100 be- fore you can equal them. So much for Mr Balfour's scheme to reform" the House of Lords. A REAL REVOLUTION. Shortly I will give you the objections: He is going to "mitigate" admitted evils. He is going to leave the House with the strong men, very much stronger than if was before. He is going to abolish the power of the Commons to create peers to swamp the House in case of necessity. He is going "to give them power to force a dissolution, and on the whole he is going to give us a cast- iron. unalterable institution, in other words. a real revolution, such as Lord Lansdowne at Glasgow the other day accused us of wanting! The Tory leader is an honourable man. But, as I have said, his arithmetic and logic are sometimes defective. And he is also a little deficient in a sense of humour (laugh- ter). I don't know whether you have had enough (Voices: "Go on!"). You have been told that the dominant issue at this election is the House of Lords. If it was the real issue at the last election, notwithstanding the Navy scares, Tariff Reform fairy tales, and everything with which the other party amused you last time, it is ten times more the dominant issue now. Our leaders have tried their best to come to a settlement. They agreed to I a Conference, although many of their politi- cal followers disapproved of it, because there are some of them still who don't want compromise. Personally, I am sorry the Conference came to an end, because it would have been an extremely useful prece- dent. I am bound to admit at compro- mises frequently please neier party. But still we can't help feelinegret that that Conference failed. A TORY DODGE We) are now in the same positi< as we were when we appealed to you last nuary. In fact, we are worse, because if t: Conserva- tives get a majority this tim your case will be infinitely worse than ever was before (hear, hear). In the fir;place, you have got to satisfy yourselv( that this death-bed repentance of the Hoe of Lords is genuine. Do you think it istkely to be genuine, having regard to tl;r history ? (" No'! "). Personally, I think is a dodge. But I refer you to the leader in 'he Times' to-day, which says that this jist not be taken as the final judgment othe House of Lords on this question. In her words, they have passed a series of resolutions which they may or may not cry out. But even if they passed thesf* reforms," believe me, you are worse c than you were before (hear, hear). We want an effective Send Cham- ber, but not a Chamber of pvilege and personal interest. We are told r are guilty of class prejudice. So far as I am concerned, I feel no prejude against the House of Lords. Any Hou consisting of one class would probably biave in ex- actly the same manner, you and included. THE ONLY NOBILIF. I appeal to you all here withhe greatest earnestness that you will retui Mr Hum- phreys-Owen, not with a paltrynajority of 13, but with at least three fig-es, and so place on record that the peop in Wales value brains more than birth, id that the nobility that they will recognis is the no- bility which is within the reaclof the poor as well as of the peer (loud cfcrs). Dr E. Davies Rees, Caersws in a very happily-worded Anglo-Welsh leech, pro- posed a vote of thanks to te speakers, which was seconded by Mr Da-d Rees and adopted. Mr Humphreys-Owe then pro- posed a vote of thanks to th, Chairman, whom he described as one < the lucky men who had a chair to sit o: (laughter). I haven't got a seat here tnight," re- marked the candidate, but I ipe you will give me a seat in two or iree weeks' time" (loud cheers). Amid loud cheering and tin singing of the Land Song," Mr Humhreys-Owen was afterwards chaired througlthe streets to the residence of Dr Davie where he stayed the night, having recebd from Mr Jack Jerman the warm-heartl blessing, 'Gocd luck! You're a winner"

MR. DAVID DAVIES' FOX HOUNDS WILL MEET ON Monday, December 5th. Llawryglyn Thursday, December 8th Newtown Saturday, December 10th Maesmawr Hall At 10-30 a.m. MR. DAVID DAVIES' BEAGLES WILL JlEBT ON Wednesday, December 7th Garthmyl At 10-45 a.m. Friday, December 9th Llanwnog At 10-30 am.

No Drink at Llanfyllin Show. At the annual meeting of the Llanfyllin Agri- cultural Society the President of the Llanfyllin Temperance Association (the Rev C. Jones) wrote stating that the Association had passed a resolution expressing the opinion that the sale of intoxicants on the show ground was detrimental to the best interests of the public, and asking the Society to consider the advisability of preventing such sale.—Mr Arthur Pughe said no doubt the sale of drink was a great nuisance. On the other hand, if a man in charge of a horse wanted a drink and had to leave the ground the evil would probably be greater. He proposed that they let things remain as they were.—Mr Griffiths Jones seconded the motion.—Mr Stanley Davies said he agreed with the resolution they had received from the Association. They derived very little benefit from the tent for the sale of intoxicants on the ground.—Mr D. Pryce proposed that they l prohibit the sale of intoxicants on the ground.— Mr Bo. D. Lewis seconded the amendment, which was carried by eight votes to six.

JIlt. DAVID DAVIES Again Adopted for the County. He Declares that the Resolutions do not go far enough. And will Throw "His Whole Soul" into Supporting Kr. Humphreys-Owen That Mr David Davies, M.P., would again be the chosen champion of County Liberalism was a foregone conclusion, but his adoption by the Liberal Association at Newtown on Thursday was not merely a formal proceeding. The Victoria Hall contained a considerable number of delegates, and when Mr David Davies walked in he had a rousing reception. Mr Hugh Lewis presided over the deliberations, and, after his introduction, Mr David Davies delivered a most well-seasoned speesh, which was as instructive as it was accept- able. Questions were invited, but none were forth- coming. Then came the adoption, and Mr Fairies- Humphreys came in for an ovation. A flash of Celtic fire was kindled when Mr John Rees, of Llausaintffraid, rose to support. and Mr Hum- phreys-Owen's eloquent testimony evoked bound- less enthusiasm. It is evident, from what Mr David Davies said, that although he will be spared the ardours of a campaign in the County he will devote all his superfluous energy to securing the triumphant return of Mr Humphreys-Owen. "Thank good- ness," said Mr Davies, we have got a candidate this time, and we can throw our whole souls and our whole energy in supporting him and carrying him to victory. Mr Humphreys-Owen is a name which has rung in Montgomeryshire ears for many years past." Mr Humphreys-Owen received an ovation al- most as stirring as that accorded to the County Member, and if cordiality and enthusiasm are a determining factor in an election, then the Liberal candidate for the Boroughs is well assured of support, and ultimate success. MR. EDWARD POWELL'S MESSAGE. The first chord was struck when the Secretary (Mr Llew. Phillips) read a letter from Mr Edwd. Powell, who regretted that his own electoral cam- paign prevented him from being present. Doubt- less they would select their excellent Member again to fight the cause of progress, and he was glad to find that the Tory Party were not able to tind a candidate after the thrashing they had last time. The Chairman then said there would be no question as to who they would select when they had a gentleman who had so nobly represented them in the past, and who had administered to their opponents such a thrashing. The fight with the Lords was bound to come sooner or later, and they said the sooner the better (hear, hear). The Lords had conceded many points, but they would rather make arrangements themselves than leave it to them. They were determined that the House of Lords must go.—[Mr Lot Williams: It must go.J-They were proud of their representa- tive, Mr David Davies—(loud applause)—especi- ally after the splendid way he had won the last election. They also wished Mr Humphreys-Owen every success, and they would all do their best to help him. They all hoped to see Montgomery Boroughs returning a Liberal Member, and a Liberal Member who would not turn his coat— [loud applause. Mr Lot Williams: He's not a [loud applause. Mr Lot Williams: He's not a weather-cock]. Then, amidst the long-sustained acclamation of his supporters, Mr David Davies arose, and said: -I think it was TWELVE MONTHS AGO that we met here at a meeting of this kind when you did me the honour of adopting me as can- didate for this county. Since then we have gone through a very strenuous fight, and we have won a very great victory for the foroes of progress in this country. I have to thank you gentlemen each one and all of you for the magnificent way in which you fought that great struggle. Now, it seems to me that there are two great issues before us,-we fought against the Veto of the House of Lords and we fought for the Budget. Those were the two things I ventured to place before the electors of the county before anything the. Now, Montgomeryshire has for ever repu- diated the covel and unconstitutional claim put forward by the House of Lords, namely, the con- trol of the finances of the country. The electors said they should have nothing to do with it; they also said that the House ef Lords as at present constituted was totally unfit to perform the duties of a second chamber efficiently. There were these two things the people declared in an em- phatic way at the last election. The question then briefly is whether the country is to be ruled by your representatives in the House of Commons or by the House of Lords, who, after all, are only responsible to themselves. Nothing has happened in the meantime which should make the people in this country change their minds and go back on their views as expressed at the last election (applause). That must be one reason why we are told that there is to be no opposition at the ooming election (applause). I ventured to say a year ago that the action of the House of Lords in throwing out the Budget really meant that no Government could hereafter be safe from an attack by the Upper Chamber and from having its supplies cut off for carrying on the business of the country. No Governmeut could possibly hold office at the will and pleasure of the House of Lords. That is a position which this country has never before been faced with. It is a PERFECTLY INTOLERABLE POSITION, and one that will remain so, and we are entering this fight still faced with the same position as last January. So I think we have to fight again for the supremacy of the House of Commons (applause). That is the great issue before us at the present moment. It is true that the Budget has been passed, but the House of Lords still maintains that it has control over the financial arrangements of the State. After the Budget was passed the Government brought in certain resolutions dealing with the Veto; then a great calamity came upon the country, the King passed away after a very brief illness,and the country was plunged into sorrow and mourning because one of the greatest monarchs—(applause)—who ever sat on the English throne was taken from us, and we lost a monarch who had persevered all through his life in the promotion of peace, and through his tact and able dealings with other nations he was able to preserve peace within and without his dominion. A conference was then convened, four from each of the great parties of the State, and they met to try and find a solution and a compromise which could be honourably accepted by both parties. That was a reasonable way of trying to arrive at an honourable truce. Personally, I always looked on the Conference with great hope, and trusted that there would be giving in on both sides to a certain extent so that fair justice could be meted out to Liberal legisla- tion when it went up to the House of Lords. But unfortunately the Conference has ended in failure, and I think that must be a disappointment to all moderate men—(hear, hear)—not only because it did not succeed in solving the difficulty, but because I think it would have been a precedent for future conferences to come, which would be able to meet when the country was ag-Lin in such a crisis or difficulty We don't know who to put the blame on as the proceedings were secret, but as the Prime Minister told us the other day, we must revert to A STATE OF WAR. Ministers are redeeming the promises they gave the country before the last election that they would not hold office unless they were able to fight this battle against the House of Lords to a finish (applause). The Liberal party at this election stands for the supremacy of the House of Commons. If you glance over the Veto resolu- tions, which already have been passed by the House of Commons, you will find that the first one deals with thm question of control of finance: the second resolution says that the House of Commons will have the last word in all matters of legislation; and the third is that no Parliament is to last longer than five years. What that means is that after an election takes place, during the first three years of the Liberal administration, they will be able to pass Liberal measures through the House of Commons, and, if rejected, then by passing them three years in succession those measures will become law whether passed by the House of Lords 01 not (applause). So that if we take the period of Parliament at five years you will see that during the last two years of the life of that Parliament, measures which are thrown out by the House of Lords will not become law till after another general election, and not until after the people have had time to express their views on those particular measures. I think that the great grievance we have suffered is that the House of Lords has allowed every Tory measure to go through without criticism or matilation, whereas whenever great Liberal measures have come up they have always been mutilated or rejected. In that way the House of Lords has shown itself to be a partial chamber (applause). Since these resolutions have been passed bv the House of Commons the House of Lords, acting oa the principle that it is NEVER TOO LATE TO MEND, have started passing resolutions advocating all sorts of reform in connection with their own House. If yon will look carefully at these resolutions you will find their reforming zeal stops short when they come to touch the hereditary principle. In both Lord Rosebery's and Lord Lansdowne s resolutions, and in Lord Newton's Bill, they have always insisted that the bulk of the new House of Lords should be drawn from the hereditary nobles. Therefore it seems to me to be nothing more or less than concentrated essence of Toryism (laughter and applause). We should still in the future, with this reformed House, be in exactly the same or in a worse position, and be under the power of a permanent majority in the Houfee of Lords. They tell us that they want to give up the hereditary principle: they so so far as to say that heredity should not be the sole reason why a man should have a seat in the Second Chamber. It rather reminds one of the shops one sees at this time of year. When we come up to the shop we notice that all the articles which used to appear in the windows have been removed and replaced by new ones in order to tempt people to go in and buy. But v-hen we enter and look over the other side of the counter we see the same old articles that were appearing in the window before. So in Lord Roeebery's resolution he would have a certain number of members of the Second Chamber who are to be chosen from outside; those are the people to go in the window. But when we go into the shop we shall find the same old lordly crowd awaiting us (laughter and applause). So in my opinion these resolutions are totally inadequate, and will put us in a worse position than we are in at the present moment. And if we are going to have a. Second Chamber, it must be one that has got rid ef this hereditary principle altogether, and it must be placed on a sound elective basis, and to some extent responsible to the public opinion in the country. THE PEOPLE THE GREAT TRIBUNAL. Now these Veto resolutions to my mind are the first step towards securing a Second Chamber of this kind, and we must not lose sight of the fact that after all the great tribunal in this country, before which everything has got to stand, is the majority of the people in the country, and it is they-the people—who have to decide what is and what is not to be law (applause) So until

The People Must Govern. Vote Liberal for a People's Government.

"That's all the Business." FORDEN GUARDIANS GET SHORT METRE. Mr Percival Hurlbutt took the chair at Forden Guardians on Wednesday. Other guardians present were Miss Oakley, Messrs Corbett-Winder, Edward Davies, C. S. Williams, Bright, W. Colley, T. Rogers, J. Edwards, E. Pryce, W. Humphreys, J. Pryce Jones, and E. Morgan Jones. The officers in attendance were the Clerk (Mr C. S. Pryce), the Master (Mr Humphreys) and Relieving Officer Fortune. Mr Jones, the Mont- gomery relieving officer, could not attend as he was laid up in bed with influenza, so his cases were reported upon by Mr Fortune. After receiving tha report of the Master and single Relieving Officer, the Clerk announced that that concluded the business of the Board. The splendid hot luncheon was eaten with all the greater relish, and as there was no Assessment Committee the faithful Guardians had an easy time. Postprandial pipes were smoked and politics discussed uzitil taa time came for depar- ture.

STOP! LOOK! THINK! SONS OF THE SOIL,— Under existing circumstances I should be among the least sufferers from Protection. From the purely selfish point of view I could afford to smile upon this fiscal fight and make gay with its personalities, careless as to which side may win. But what of you-the farmers-with whom, according to Colonel Pryce-Jones, Protection is to begin with a 2s duty on the quarter of foreign wheat ? I want you to STOP, LOOK, and THINK for a few moments, at the end of which I shall leave you to your own sericus reflections. I am addressing myself particularly to those farmers who have a vote in the Boroughs election, and most particularly of all to those of them who profess Toryism. Many of my best and truest friends are Tories. Some of these are among my most intellectual friends Do not imagine at the outset that this epistle is directed against your Tory principles. It has nothing to do with Toryism; nor is it intended as a laudation of Liberalism. My sole purpose is to hold your attention for a few minutes in order calmly and reasonably to discuss what you stand to gain or lose by Protection. Now Protection to you farmers, as to most other folk, is a matter of POUNDS, SHILLINGS, and PENCE. It will either put in or take out of your pocket. Do not make a mistake in thinking it is a purely party question and in voting according to your party leanings. To you there is no differ- ence between adopting or rejecting it and that of accepting or refusing a certain market price for a bunch of your sheep exposed at the monthly fair. But while you know best whether to sell or retain your sheep, methinks you have no such clear notion as to how Protection would work out So we will sit down together and try to reason the thing out, not as politicians, but as business men, always remembering that this is an affair of the pocket. Very well, let us begin, and chat in language that we can understand. Colonel Pryce-Jones: I muet mention his name merely because he is our protectionist advocate— has now definitely pledged himself to a small tax on foreign wheat, and promises-only promises, mark you-to reduce the present duty on tea and sugar. That, in fact, is the pledge of the Pro- tectionist party. If Protection went no further than that, then farmers might vote for it straight- way with little risk of loss. But, unfortunately for you, it is not going to end there if that Protectionist party gets into power. It is my business to tell you where it will end, and be assured I wont trespass an inch upon imagination. Protection can easily be answered by facts, and what I state as facts here you may submit to the utmost examination. Take them to the most ardent Protectionist you know, and let me learn what he says of them. Well, this small tax on wheat" is to be, as I have said, 28 a quarter. That is to say, you will likely get 2s more for every quarter of wheat you grow. Of course, Protectionists do not tell that to the consumer of the loaf. The consumer, they say, will not pay. If he dees not pay, where is your extra 2s to come from ? Just STOP, LOOK, and THINK at that question ere we proceed. Having done this, you will now accompany me to the farm of John Davies. John farms 150 acres, 100 of which is pasture. Encouraged by 2s more for every quarter of wheat, he resolves to lay down 20 more acres in that crop. His land has hitherto yielded 4 quarters per acve. So at the rate of 2s more John derives from these acres 100 shillings, or £ 8 more than he is now getting for his wheat. So far, so good. But in order to set these 20 additional acres apart for wheat, John must reduce by that amount the extent of his grass land. He cannot, therefore, keep so many sheep or cattle. Besides that, he must count the cost of tilling these 20 acres for wheat, the cost of manures and seed, the cost of the subsequent labour right up to the harvest, the stacking and the threshing. Now comes the question, how much will John make by the transaction? You are able to an- swer better than I am. Will you sit down and try to work it out on paper ? It is but a simple piece of oaloulation and arithmetic, and you will find it beth interesting and instructive before the polling day. Yes," but you say, please remember that John Davies is going to have his tea and his sugar cheaper." That. at any rate, is the Pro- tectionists' promise, and we will suppose the promise is fulfilled. What then? John's wife pays less for her sugar and tea, but she comes home from market to say that the price of her kitchen utensils is up, and so is clothing, and so is beef, and other things she had wanted, and shs blames the trades- men for combining to raise the prices. John himself goes to town next day. He wants a new plough, a new turnip cutter, and a drill machine-the same manufacture as the old ones. He knows what he paid for them, and puts the necessary cash in his pocket. They are ten per cent, more now, sir," says the tradesman, and John demands to know the reason why. Well/* replies the tradesman, "aren't you having ten per cent. more for your wheat ? You, surely, do not think that we tradesmen and all others should pay more for our bread, and get no benefit ourselves out of Protection ? John is silenced by the unanswerable reason- ableness of the argument, and goes home either without his plough, turnip cutter and drill machine, or with less in his pocket than he hoped. Stowing over the situation at home he readily comes to the conclusion that cms arrangement wont do. He must have more than 2s extra for his wheat, or Protection will fleece him. And if he brings back thepe 20 acres to grass he will still have to pay the Protection price for all the farm implements, while his wife also is called upon to give more for her household requisites. So John Davies and all other farmers in Mont- gomeryshire begin to cry out for something like a 10a duty on wheat. They are answered by the bread consumers in the town that they will revolt against dearer bread. Then they may go to Colonel Pryce-Jones. But the Colonel says, I cannot really go beyond my pledge of I a small duty' on wheat. The great majority of my constituents would not stand it. and I am sure that my party would be drummed out of office at next election if they yielded to your demand." Mr F. E. Smith, the great champion of Pro- tection, has just said that he would uncere- moniously leave his party did they go beyond the 2s duty. He knows that the power of his party would not be worth a minute's purchase if they did anything of the kind. John Davies's position will inevitably be the position of every farmer in Montgomeryshire under Protection. Can you show me that I have argued wrongly ? If you cannot, will you yet vote for Protection simply because it is recommended by the party to which you have always belonged ? You certainly will not unless your ordinary common- sense ideas of business have taken temporary leave of you. Again, let me remind you that this to you is wholly a matter of £ s. d. If, despite all my warning you still think a 2s daty on wheat, against all the other protective tariffs that will have to be paid, is to profit you, then vote for Tariff Reform. It is you who will reap the result, not me. Yours faithfully, LUKE SHAitric.

we have this reformed Second Chamber I don't think these resolutions—though the first step- go altogether far enough (loud applause). If we take the series of Tory Bills that were passed before 1906-though a party when it comes into office has a certain mandate-the Education Act of 1903, and the Brewers' Bill of 1904, we find that nothing whatever was said at the election of 1900 about any of these measures, and I cannot conceive how the Tory party can say that they had any mandate from the people to pass those two measures into law. Therefore, when we oome to an election there are always certain great issues before the country, and they are decided one way or another, but by these resolutions it may take three years to pasa the Bills on which the country has decided. Therefore I think these Veto resolutions are nothing like approaching Single Chamber government as our Conservative friends tell us. At present we are undoubtedly living under a form of Single Chamber govern- ment. As far as I am concerned I shall support those resolutions as far as I am able, and after- wards I shall support any sensible measure te thoroughly and efficiently reform the House of Lords as it stands (applause). Well, now I think I ought to say one cr two words with re- gard to other questions. You know MY VIEWS ON TARIFF REFORM and on Free Trade—(applause)—on Temperance, on Education and on Disestablishment, and it will need no words from me to say anything about them. We are told by some people that this is a. Home Rule Election. I am not in favour of a policy of absolute separation between this country and Ireland—[The Chairman: Hear, bearJ-but I could support a policy of devolution which would safeguard the rights and interests of the Protest- ants in Ireland and give some reasonable adjust- ment of the financial relations between the countries and at the same time keep the Imperial services under the control of Parliament. There is another question, that as to the payment of members, so far as I am concerned I am opposed to paying, my first reason is that I believe in vol- untary service, because when you can get people to give their services for nothing it is not a sound business proposition to pay them, and the second reason is that we should be enoeuraging a class of professional politicians who would make it the sole business of their lives. Another argument against it is that if you pay members of Parlia- ment you would have to pay all members of County Councils, Municipal Corporations, etc. (laughter and hear, hear). If you would do all that, you would put a great burden on the shoulders of the oountry. I should certainly support a bill though to pay election expenses —(laughter)—and I would support any reasonable measure which would give Trades Unions a right to have a distinct Parliamentary fund in support of any candidates they might bring forward; but this should be on a voluntary basis without com- pulsion on the members of the unions to support it unless they wished to do so. The main ques- tion you have to decide is that of the House of Lords. There are two great things every Gov- ernment has to look to. The first thing is to try and PROMOTE THE WELFARE and prosperity of the people of this country, and to see that the country is made secure, and that law and order are maintained, and that we are safe from attack from within and without. When you have two great parties with different policies aud different methods of legislation, this legisla- tion must be passed before you get an even balance on which the country can go on progress- ing, and on which you get a basis of security as a State and a nation. That is one reason why there should be fair play between the two parties, why we should have a reformed Second Chamber on an electoral basis. We are fighting the cause of representative institutions, and I think Mont- gomeryshire at the last election showed that it was on the side of representative institutions. We can now concentrate our forces on again keep- ing the Montgomery Boroughs for the same cause as they won at the last election. Unfortunately, or fortunately-I shall leave you to judge-we were left rather in the lurch at the last moment by the gentleman who had represented the boroughs at the last election, but, thank goodness, we have got a candidate this time (loud applause). We can throw our whole hearts and our whole energy in supporting him and carrying him to victory (applause). Mr Humphreys-Owen is a name that has rung in Montgomeryshire ears for many years past (applause). I think we shall see Liberalism in this county carrying him to victory and sending to Parliament two representatives who will support free institutions in this country as it has done in the past (loud cheers). Mr Fairies-Humphreys then moved the adopting resolution, Mr W. A. Jehu (Llanfair) seconded, and supporting speeches came from Messrs Hum- phreys-Owen, David Pryce (Kynant), Robert Griffiths (Cynhinfa), J. Bancroft Willans (Dol- forgan), Mr (not Sir) John Bees (of Llansaint- ffraid), and Mr Rd. Jones (Pendinas). The reso- lution was carried with unanimity and eclat, and Mr David Davies made a brief response, thanking the Chairman for his services. Mr David Lloyd (Gorn) seconded, and thus the meeting terminated.